Standing Committee G

Part II - Mrs. Irene Adams

Education Bill

[Continuation from column 76]

On resuming—

Phil Willis: They now have to earn autonomy. To refresh hon. Members' minds, I was saying that schools have delivered on what the Government have asked. They have produced outstanding responses to a whole host of initiatives, some of which they were not keen to participate in. The idea that they now have to earn autonomy is rather sad.
 However, if that is to be the case, the amendment suggests that objective criteria should be applied. The Minister has made it clear, throughout the day, that he is prepared to set some objective criteria, and the Committee wants to hear them. I also have problems with the criteria. When the hon. Member for Isle of Wight spoke earlier, and cut to the chase, he started to talk about specific objective criteria. Earlier, I had raised the issue of how to judge whether a school is failing or successful. If one does that simply by narrow, national objective criteria, one can quickly fall foul of it. The comments that I made earlier about five A to Cs are an example of that. If the judgment is made on the basis of exclusions, levels of improvement, or any of those simple objective measures, one will not get to the heart of what the Government want from innovation, and what I hope Opposition parties also want. We must therefore be careful about what criteria we use. 
 I emphasise, however, that it is important that we have a chance to see what criteria the Government have in mind with regard to earned autonomy. If we do not have that opportunity, schools will be thrashing about in the dark, trying to find out what is in the Government's mind before they make the relevant applications. Although the amendments are slightly flawed, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West makes a good a point, and I trust that the Minister will respond accordingly.

Stephen Timms: We now reach the much anticipated part of the Bill that deals with earned autonomy, or, as the parliamentary draftsman has expressed it, exemptions related to school performance. It would be helpful to begin by clarifying the distinctions between the exemptions available here, and the innovation available under the part of the Bill that we have just finished discussing.
 First, when the power to innovate, in chapter 1, is available on application to any school, the exemptions are only available to schools meeting specified performance criteria. Secondly, when the power to 
 innovate can be used to relax any regulatory requirements in education law, the exemptions can only be applied to curriculum provisions or pay and conditions provisions. Thirdly, when the power to innovate, in chapter 1, will entail a judgment being made by the Secretary of State on whether the proposal will raise educational standards, the exemptions will usually apply, in effect, as of right, without the need for such a judgment to be made, although there may be exceptions to that, to which I shall come in a moment. Fourthly, when the power to innovate is being piloted, as we discussed previously, the exemptions can be of indefinite duration—although they can be removed under clause 8, they are not of fixed duration. 
 We want the process for schools to earn autonomy to be as clear as possible, as both hon. Members who have spoken have mentioned. Over time, we want to provide all schools with the opportunity to aim towards it, as standards continue to rise, and leadership continues to improve further. The criteria that are used to award autonomy to schools will be clear and consistent, and we will ensure—as far as is possible—that they are objective. However, with regard to amendment No. 9, the criteria will need to involve an element of judgment—it will be impossible for us entirely to dispense with that. 
 I offer an example to illustrate that point. The two key areas that I would expect the criteria to address are the school's performance and its Ofsted report. It is important to note that the performance data will be published, and that we will increasingly be able to refer to value added performance data. A school might meet the performance criteria, and its latest Ofsted report might suggest that it has strong leadership, in which case, on the objective criteria, it would qualify for the exemptions. However, I hope that Committee members will agree with me that, if the school's entire leadership team had changed since the Ofsted report was produced, the Secretary of State would need to exercise judgment with regard to deciding whether exemptions should be made available.

Phil Willis: Does the Minister have in mind specific performance criteria, such as the five A to Cs criteria, which has been used—by the Prime Minister, the former Secretary of State and the current Secretary of State—to distinguish between successful and unsuccessful schools?

Stephen Timms: I would expect the performance data to include several types of information: absolute performance information, such as GCSE results, and key stage 3 results that take account of free school meal bands; improvement in performance; and value added data, which is increasingly becoming available. Those would constitute the parameters of our proposals, but we will consult on the precise criteria.

Graham Brady: I hope that it will not sound churlish if I say that, for the first time today, the Minister is beginning to answer some of the concerns of Committee members who do not represent the Labour party. We want to be told of the details of the Government's intentions.
 Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to put a little more flesh on the bones by agreeing to set out, at least in draft form, what those criteria will be, before the House concludes its consideration of the Bill?

Stephen Timms: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's expression of appreciation. However, the reason I am answering questions about earned autonomy for the first time, is because this is the first time that we have addressed the subject.
 The hon. Gentleman has made a reasonable request, and I hope that it will be possible to comply with it, although I cannot guarantee that at present. We would expect the criteria to include an assessment of the leadership of the school—which will probably be based on Ofsted's assessment—as well as performance data. We would also expect a consultation to take place with regard to those ideas.

Chris Grayling: One obvious circumstance in which a school could look to the Department for consent to take steps under the provisions would be if it were a failing school in which a new head teacher had been employed with a mandate to turn the school round. That should be reflected in the criteria that the Government set out.

Stephen Timms: If the school is failing, it is highly unlikely to meet the performance criteria. However, if such a school wished, it could apply under chapter 1 to use the powers to innovate. It would not qualify for the automatic exemptions under chapter 2.

Andrew Turner: Will the Minister extend that a little further? Are the prescribed criteria in subsection (1) a single set that relates to both curriculum provisions and pay and conditions provisions, or is the Secretary of State permitted to set two sets of criteria that relate to two different provisions? The latter may seem more appropriate because if a school was near to failing, it would be evident that that was the point at which one should encourage the recruitment of more and better teachers by, perhaps, offering better terms and conditions of service.

Stephen Timms: No, we envisage that the criteria will be the same for both. When performance criteria were met, the school would be entitled to take on the exemptions that are listed in clause 6.
 I return to the issue raised by amendment No. 9 concerning the Secretary of State exercising his judgment. I hope that my examples have made it clear that there will be cases in which judgment must be applied. However, that would not usually be the case, and would be the exception rather than the rule. In the majority of cases, there would be no doubt about whether schools meet the criteria.

Phil Willis: The Minister explained that, under chapter 1, all schools may apply to innovate. However, under clause 5, only schools that have earned autonomy may disapply the national curriculum and pay and conditions. Have I followed the Minister so
 far? Does that assume, under chapter 1, that a school cannot innovate about the curriculum unless it has satisfied earned autonomy under clause 5?

Stephen Timms: Let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to clause 2, which states:
 ''On the application of one or more qualifying bodies...the Secretary of State may . . . make provision . . . conferring on the applicant exemption from any requirement imposed by education legislation''. 
A school may apply for an exemption from any requirement of education legislation under the powers to facilitate innovation. Those requirements include curriculum legislation.

Phil Willis: The point that I make is that unless a school has earned autonomy, it cannot disapply the two key areas of the curriculum and pay and conditions. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Isle of Wight answers for the Minister, but I would prefer the Minister's response.

Stephen Timms: I did not hear the answer.
 The difference is that when a school meets the performance criteria, it will—as of right, in most instances—be entitled to take advantage of the exemptions that are outlined in clause 6. However, it would be possible for another school to apply to take on similar flexibilities under the powers to innovate in chapter 1. It would not be barred from doing so because of the exemptions in chapter 2.

Phil Willis: The specific difference is that earned autonomy gives someone the automatic right to do those things without asking anyone else. In Part 1, one has to go begging to the Secretary of State.

Stephen Timms: Those are not the words that I would use, but the hon. Gentleman is on the right lines. I make one caveat. As the example that I gave illustrates, in some instances there will be a requirement for the Secretary of State to express an opinion. That might be when there has been a change such as that that I outlined—perhaps Ofsted said that everything was fine and that the performance data was fine, but the management team of the school has now gone. There could be such exceptional circumstances in which the Secretary of State would have to express an opinion, as clause 5(2) allows for.

Chris Grayling: I am trying to understand the Minister's point. What would happen if there were a change in the leadership of the school, resulting in a different character of leadership? Although the school might previously have met the criteria, in the intervening period before Ofsted could come back and say that it was no longer happy with the leadership, would not that leadership have pretty swingeing powers? It could make changes to the whole way in which the school operated, without the system offering any restraints to prevent that. Would that be possible?
 Mr. Timms: I am not sure that I entirely follow the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman is outlining. I think that he is talking about a school that has met the criteria and earned autonomy, but in which the leadership group then changes.

Chris Grayling: Let me give a practical example. Without wishing to pick any particular group, let us suppose that a newly appointed head took a personal decision to change radically the character of the school to make it a strongly faith-based school, in a way that was not in the interests of the school community. Although Ofsted might come back later and say that that was not appropriate, none the less, on day one of his job the head would have the freedom to make swingeing changes to the school and its curriculum and culture without restriction.

Stephen Timms: Let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to clause 6, which sets out that the exemptions available for a school that has earned autonomy relate to the curriculum and pay and conditions. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that there could be wide scope to change all kinds of other things, but that would not be available under earned autonomy. The powers automatically available under earned autonomy are quite circumscribed.
 I turn to amendment No. 67. We aim that the criteria for earned autonomy should be clear, concise and fair to all schools, whatever their circumstances. I can give the Committee a commitment that we will consult on those criteria and take all views into account before laying regulations before the House. I will go a little further, which might help the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West some more. We will make available a clear statement of our policy on the criteria under clause 5(1) as a draft for the consultation exercise before the Bill leaves the Commons. That is earlier than he was asking for, and I hope that it is helpful to him.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the Minister for that last point, to which I shall return.
 On amendment No. 67, I am grateful for the commitment that the Minister has given to consult and take account of views before producing the criteria. It would fall into the category of a ministerial commitment that would be of little value, if it were not for the later commitment, for which I am sure that all hon. Members are grateful. If nothing else proves the value of today's Committee proceedings, that certainly does. It will be of enormous benefit to hon. Members and others who are interested in our proceedings to be able to see that there is consultation, and feed in their views, before the House completes its consideration of the Bill. 
 I take issue with some points that the Minister raised in opposing amendment No. 9. To illustrate that an element of judgment may be required, he gave the example of where the leadership of a school has been good but the head leaves. Such cases could be dealt with by objective criteria. If pressed, I might accept that there may be grounds for a reserve power that is stated as such, but that is not the way in which 
 subsection (2) currently states the situation. It simply sets out that for the purposes of subsection (1) the criteria may include the Secretary of State's opinion or that of the National Assembly.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that once again the difficulty arises not with the Secretary of State, who one can assume is likely to have a rational reason for reaching a particular decision, but with the National Assembly? The reasons people may have had for voting for or against a particular proposal would be many, diverse and impossible to catalogue in the judicial review proceedings that would occur if a school felt that an opinion had been reached in an unreasonable manner. To quote the Minister, we are once more into the territory of a ''lawyers' charter''.

Graham Brady: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. How the courts will interpret the opinions of the National Assembly for Wales is uncharted water. We all look forward with intense anticipation to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales giving us greater knowledge of how these matters will proceed.
 The Minister clearly stated that we could expect objective criteria by which schools would be in a position to judge whether they would qualify for earned autonomy, which is something that I and other hon. Members welcome. What those objective criteria may be will be another matter, but he has given us an insight for which we are grateful. We are especially grateful for his undertaking to set out the criteria in greater detail. 
 I had been minded to press amendment No. 9 to a Division, but I shall not do so in the light of the good will that the Minister has shown. Instead, I shall invite my hon. Friends to hold their fire and reserve their judgment until we see the detailed proposals that he has promised. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 4, line 15, after 'England', insert
'except those contained in sections 74 and 75 below'.

Irene Adams: With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 69, in page 4, line 15, after 'England', insert
'except those contained in sections 449 to 462 of the Education Act 1996'.
 No. 30, in page 4, line 18, after 'Wales', insert 
'except those contained in sections 95 and 96 below'.
 No. 70, in page 4, line 17, after 'Wales', insert 
'except those contained in sections 449 to 462 of the Education Act 1996'.

Graham Brady: Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 apply respectively to England and Wales as do amendments Nos. 69 and 70, which seek to circumscribe the powers to suspend the curriculum for schools under these earned autonomy proposals in the important respect of accepting the requirement to maintain the provisions in clauses 74 and 75, which amount to a guarantee that schools should continue to offer a balanced and broadly based curriculum.
 I would expect the amendments to be regarded as non-contentious. I should be surprised if the Minister, in responding to them, were to say that relaxation or suspension of curriculum requirements for maintained schools that earn their autonomy will result in their offering anything other than a balanced and broadly based curriculum, regardless of what specialisms they may wish to pursue, and regardless of a possible wish to concentrate effort—as specialist schools already do—in particular areas of the curriculum. It seems highly improbable that it is the will of Ministers or the House to allow schools to suspend national curriculum requirements to such an extent that they can concentrate solely on a sports-based, technology-based or language-based curriculum. Perhaps the Minister will argue otherwise, and we should be interested to hear his arguments, but such a provision would seem to go far beyond the curriculum innovations introduced by the previous Conservative Government, or by those elements of the Labour Government's education legislation that built on specialist schools, city technology colleges, city academies and the like. All such institutions offer broad curricula that do not permit them to specialise only in their chosen area of interest. 
 I look forward to the Minister's comments on amendments Nos. 69 and 70, one of which I can probably anticipate. I fear that they might deal with the wrong part of the Bill, and no doubt he, with the benefit of his advisers, will say whether that is so. Even if they should have been slotted in elsewhere, they have been selected for debate, so I beg your forgiveness, Mrs. Adams, as I air the issues that they raise. 
 The concern at the heart of amendments Nos. 69 and 70, which relate to England and Wales respectively, is the incredible breadth of potential exemptions from education legislation. The Government's decision to concertina the timetable for the Bill's consideration has created time pressure, which may have caused an estimable outside body to ask me to raise the matter at slightly the wrong point in the Bill. In obliging sections 449 to 462 of the Education Act 1996 to remain part of the requirements of education legislation, the amendments' import is to restrain Ministers present or future from going so far in the application of the discretion under the Bill that they end the current guarantee in the 1996 Act to provide free education. The fact that that is possible illustrates the breadth of powers that Ministers have under the Bill. 
 Given my remarks about the appropriate point at which to table amendments Nos. 69 and 70, the Minister would not expect me to press them. However, I would welcome his comments on them, as well as any assurance that he can give that the Government might look favourably on a later amendment that would similarly constrain Ministers' freedom to manoeuvre. That would give some comfort to those who fear that charging may spread beyond the strictly circumscribed areas of education provision in the maintained sector. 
 If the Minister's comments and assurances are insufficient, we may seek to press the matter at a later stage. 
 Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 are very important. They will be of great interest to the many people who follow the debate and want to know what Ministers truly intend in releasing constraints on the national curriculum. Do they intend that there should be any constraint, or that it should be an entirely unfettered power? I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.

Phil Willis: I do not wish to speak to amendments Nos. 69 and 70, because I suspect that they have been tabled to the wrong part of the Bill. However, amendments Nos. 29 and 30 are extremely important and require detailed analysis and response by the Secretary of State.
 I believe, both as an individual and as a representative of the Liberal Democrats, that if we are to liberate the requirements of the national curriculum it must be done with a semblance of order to ensure that young people continue to have a broad and balanced curriculum. It continues to worry me that some aspects of specialist schools could distort that provision. 
 I hope that when the Minister responds he will concentrate on key stages 3 and 4, or the extended key stage 4 for the 14 to 19 curriculum. There is a fundamental difference in the disapplication of the national curriculum at key stage 4 and above. As I said on Second Reading, the Government are right to have a major review of the 14 to 19 curriculum and the organisation that goes with it. We are at one with the Government on that, as is the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. 
 It is necessary to consider separately the criteria for key stage 4, or 14 to 19, and for key stage 3. Especially at key stage 3, the need to retain the breadth of curriculum that is offered to all young people is incredibly important. I mean that not only in respect of a group of youngsters of a certain ability at key stage 3. We should not cut off areas of the curriculum to children with special needs or particular difficulties. In statements made by the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), it is worrying to note that when examining the primary curriculum he decided to remove music and art as compulsory requirements for key stages 1 and 2. That sent out all sorts of wrong signals. 
 At one extreme, set curricula have been prescribed in the past, as happened in 1988—the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West will agree that we learnt lessons from the mistake of saying what every child should do. However, nor should we go the other way and say that during their formative years we should deny our young people opportunities to have a broad and balanced curriculum that includes the arts, particularly art and music. Such a curriculum should also include humanities, social sciences and religious education because they are all important areas. 
 I should like the Minister to reply to the point about key stage 3. On the subject of issuing guidance about what can be disapplied, or what the framework for disapplication might be, he must remain mindful that key stage 3 is important. Key stage 3 guidance should be separate from that for key stage 4, and he should withhold guidance for the latter until we have been able to address the issue of the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds.

Graham Brady: I am with the hon. Gentleman on at least 90 per cent. of his argument. However, I should like to press him a little on a worry that I have. Welcome as a relaxation of the curriculum for the 14-to-19 cohort may be because it provides for a more vocational or work-based aspect to their education, does the hon. Gentleman agree that that should be an aspect of education, not its totality? I would be rather concerned if that group of young people were taken out of school and out of a broad curriculum, however defined, and put in a solely vocational and workplace-based training situation.

Phil Willis: If I have given the hon. Gentleman that impression, I apologise profusely. That is certainly not the case. We will be lost if my party, or any other party, goes back to the bad old days of a division between vocational and academic education, as if the two can be separated like sheep and goats—one lot going off on an academic path, the other on a vocational one. If that is the vision, I want nothing to do with it. [Interruption.] I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) who is saying from a sedentary position that that is not the case. I was simply trying to respond to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West and ensure that he did not go home tonight and toss and turn in his bed agonising over what I may have meant.
 I urge the Minister to give us clear parameters for key stage 3 and to leave key stage 4, in terms of advice and disapplication, until we have had an opportunity to consider where we are going with the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds.. Although innovation is important and we support it, the framework in which it takes place is also important. Increasingly, there are national considerations for key stage 4 and beyond, and I think that a desired objective of the Government—certainly, one of ours—is to increase participation beyond the age of 16. That must be a fundamental premise for whatever we do with the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds and it requires careful guidance. We do not want to go back to a situation where only the privileged continue in school to key stage 4. 
 In respect of disapplying the curriculum, will the Minister give me his thoughts on what will happen to religious education and say whether it will become something that could be disapplied? Will the Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education, which looks at religious education syllabuses throughout local authorities, be disbanded? That would allow individual schools either not to teach religious education and to be disapplied from the agreed 
 syllabus of a local authority, or to pursue fairly fundamentalist religious teaching. I hope that the Minister can give some reassurance on those issues.

Chris Grayling: I want to make a few points. I have great concerns—they are reflected in an amendment that I have tabled to the next clause, but clearly relate directly to this debate—about the nature of the national curriculum once the proposed provisions are implemented, if indeed they are.
 There is no doubt in my mind—I think that this is now widely accepted—that the national curriculum, albeit following some teething problems, has made a major contribution to raising educational standards. It was no coincidence that the generation covered by last week's Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development survey of the standards in British schools tallied almost exactly with the lifespan of the national curriculum. It worries me that this legislation risks significantly undermining the national curriculum. 
 If all we are talking about is some limited ability to change the curriculum—to add some diversity or an extra dimension to what a school is doing—then I have no problem. However, the sweeping provisions proposed would in theory allow a school to go far beyond simply adjusting its curriculum to increase the diversity of teaching offered to its pupils. I would like some clear caveats in the Bill. 
 I echo the view of many head teachers—and some of the aspirations that lie behind the provisions—that we can be too prescriptive in our schools. Many heads say that they do not have the freedom and flexibility that they would like to offer additional dimensions to the education in their schools to reflect the needs, desires, wishes and culture of pupils. That is without doubt desirable. My concern is that there are no proposed limitations to such flexibility, and that a school that meets the criteria under this legislation could make wholesale changes, with no clear benchmarks, framework or guidelines as provided by the national curriculum. Essentially, they could do what they want. 
 After the positive contribution to our education system that the national curriculum has made, it would be a retrograde step to allow curriculum anarchy. That, at its most extreme, is the potential consequence of this legislation. There must be enough flexibility to allow schools to reflect their desire for diversity, but not such great flexibility that their curricula can go in significantly different directions.

Caroline Flint: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have had much discussion about safeguards relating to the Secretary of State—whoever it is at the time—authorising such measures, and that the bottom line is that schools will be able to apply for the ability to implement them only if they are connected to raising educational standards? That will be the basis on which any such freedom can be agreed. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that anarchy will reign in our schools. He cannot have it both ways: he cannot talk about free schools and then say that there will be anarchy as soon as they try to apply such freedoms.
 Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady misses the point that the provision allows not simply limited changes, but wholesale restructuring of the curriculum. I support the principle of free schools and allowing heads freedom to take decisions in the interests of their schools, but I do not believe that that should be taken so far that we scrap the national curriculum. I do not see any clear safeguards in the Bill to protect the national curriculum.
 We are talking about rights to amend curricula and conditions that are earned through performance. They are not earned through application. They are almost automatic rights for certain schools. Those schools could take radical decisions on their curricula without reference to the Secretary of State. If I am wrong on that point, I hope that the Minister will correct me. 
 Up to a certain point, that is desirable, but the question is where to draw the line between heads having sensible freedoms to operate enlightened management policies in their schools and the national curriculum going out of the window. I am concerned that the legislation does not define that line. It leaves to schools' individual judgment which direction they want to go in. That is foolhardy, given the degree of success that the national curriculum has engendered in many of our schools.

Andrew Turner: It is important to remember that the national curriculum was made for pupils, not pupils for the national curriculum. The amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West would set a reasonable boundary on any amendments to the national curriculum that a head might seek. There are certainly schools that at present could not move into the maintained sector because of the national curriculum requirements currently in place, which are, none the less, highly effective schools, such as the Rudolph Steiner schools. I believe that consideration is currently being given to the Rudolph Steiner schools being admitted to the maintained sector.
 It is important to realise that the idea of the national curriculum started as a basic entitlement. It was quickly translated by those implementing the law—not those who made the law—into an all-embracing, highly prescriptive and dangerous document that attempted to cram into a limited number of hours in a child's life a huge number of detailed requirements that neither schools, teachers, parents, nor my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher felt were appropriate when the provisions were enacted in the Education Reform Act 1988. It happened because of the way in which the national curriculum was constructed. 
 The curriculum was constructed by a range of different subject committees, each with many specialists all wanting to grab their own specialism within the subject and to ensure that that was properly laid out in the curriculum's requirements. Each of those committees, having worked not to the lowest common denominator but the other thing—I forget what it is called—then put everything into its bid for 
 what should go into the national curriculum. Every subject was then allowed as much as possible of what it was seeking. 
 That was a highly damaging process. I declare a little history here because I was involved in the policy group that led to the 1987 Conservative election manifesto, and I have to say that there was no idea at the time that the national curriculum was anything but a basic entitlement. My considered belief is that the officials in the Minister's Department had a national curriculum document tucked away in their drawers which they then hauled out as the quid pro quo for what they saw as some rather dangerous proposals to allow freedom to schools, which they would never have considered in a hundred years if they were not to get something in return. The national curriculum was the balance for the freedom that we wanted to give schools through local management of schools and grant-maintained status. You may feel that I am veering too far into history, Mrs. Adams, but it is sometimes important to put such matters on the record.

Phil Willis: We know who was to blame.

Andrew Turner: Yes, we know who was to blame. If I may say so, it was neither my noble Friend Lord Baker, nor my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, nor I.
 The amendment brings the objectives of the national curriculum back to basics. It requires schools to observe those basics without being constrained by the highly artificial and dangerous superstructure that was erected on those few words. I confess that I would like schools to experiment just as widely with the curriculum that they offer as they do with teachers' pay and conditions and other aspects of legislation, in the interests of innovation and raising standards. They do not need to deliver the American west in year seven. They do not need to deliver the curriculum through IT, as long as they deliver a basic entitlement. At the moment, I understand that Rudolph Steiner schools are prevented from being absorbed into the maintained sector because they do not wish to deliver through IT at an early age, and they do not recognise that as necessary. The amendment sets out exactly the kind of provision to which pupils should be entitled, without restraining schools as they are currently restrained.

Stephen Timms: We have had an interesting debate on this group of amendments. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has been especially informative, and one of the things that we discovered from his remarks was that whoever was in charge of the Department of Education and Science in 1987—as the Department for Education and Skills was called at the time—it certainly was not the Ministers. Of course, nobody would say that now.
 May I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell to clause 6, as he was suggesting that once a school has met the performance criteria it will have untrammelled freedom to do whatever it likes? That is not the case. As I said at the outset, the freedom that is available is tightly circumscribed—schools will be able to take advantage of designated exemptions and modifications under clause 6. 
 Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 propose that schools cannot earn autonomy in respect of the general requirements of the curriculum. They refer, respectively, to clauses 74 and 75 for England, and clauses 95 and 96 for Wales. I am grateful to Opposition Members of both parties for tabling those two amendments, as they raise important points, and provide an opportunity for me to put some important responses on the record. I hope that I can persuade Opposition Members that the amendments are unnecessary. If Committee members turn to the relevant clauses, they will see that that part of the Bill—in part 6—comes under the heading 
''General duties in respect of the curriculum''. 
Clauses 74 and 75, to which the amendment refers, come under that heading. Only when we reach clause 77 does the heading 
''The National Curriculum for England'' 
appear. The Welsh clauses are structured in the same way. Clause (5)(3) states: 
 ''In this Chapter— 
 ''curriculum provision'' means— 
 (a) in relation to a maintained school maintained by a local education authority in England, any provision of the National Curriculum for England''. 
In other words, subsection (3) relates to clause 77 and subsequent clauses in the case of England, and to clause 93 and subsequent clauses in the case of Wales. 
 Subsection (3) does not relate to clauses 74 and 75, which relate to England and are referred to in clause 29. Nor does the subsection relate to clauses 95 and 96, which relate to Wales and are referred to in amendment No. 30. Under the Bill, schools can earn autonomy only in respect of the national curriculum. The clauses referred to in this group of amendments do not deal with the national curriculum but are restricted to the general requirements of the curriculum. 
 The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough raised the question of religious education. Clause 76(1)(a) mentions 
''provision for religious education for all registered pupils at the school...as apply in relation to the school''. 
That is also outside the scope of the variations identified in clause 5, so I reassure him on that point. 
 The two broad aims of the school curriculum are set out clearly in ''Curriculum 2000''. First, it should provide all pupils with the opportunity to learn and achieve. Secondly, the curriculum should promote spiritual, moral, social and cultural development, and prepare all pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of life. We remain committed to those aims. 
 I hope that I have dealt with the concerns raised in amendments Nos. 29 and 30, but our discussions have ranged over more than just those amendments. When we discuss the amendments tabled to clause 6, we shall have a wide-ranging debate on the nature of the exemptions available under the provision. I shall be interested to hear the views expressed in that debate. We shall consult on those points in the coming weeks. 
 Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 would ensure that no school that earned autonomy under the Bill's provisions could earn autonomy from the provisions for charging for school activities, which are set out in 
 sections 449 to 462 of the Education Act 1996. I reassure the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West that no maintained school will be able to operate outside those charging provisions. 
 Sections 449 to 462 will remain in force for schools that have earned autonomy as well as those that have not. That is because ''curriculum provision'' is defined in subsection (3) as 
''any provision of the National Curriculum'' 
for either England and Wales. That definition is contained in sections 353 to 369 of the 1996 Act, which will be replaced by clauses 77 to 92 for England and clauses 93 to 114 for Wales, and by orders and regulations made under those clauses. The Bill does not provide the power for the regulations to extend to sections 449 to 462 of the 1996 Act. I hope that that is clear.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the Minister. The best that I can say is that the matter is as clear as it can be. Will he give an assurance that schools would not have the leeway to apply for exemption from education legislation under part 1? Would it be possible for schools that benefit from exemptions in connection with innovation to suspend the requirements of the Education Act 1996?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman asked an interesting and important question. As I have repeatedly said, chapter 1 clearly enables the Secretary of State to make provision that would confer on the applicant exemption from any requirement imposed by education legislation. Theoretically, the hon. Gentleman's worry could be valid, but I assure him that we would not allow an innovation that would introduce charging or end the right to free education. That would not be raising standards as required under that part of the Bill.
 I hope that the hon. Gentleman has been adequately reassured about the amendments. We now know that amendments Nos. 69 and 70 will not be pressed to a Division, but I hope that he is reassured about amendments Nos. 29 and 30.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the Minister, not least for resisting the temptation to highlight drafting irregularities under amendments Nos. 69 and 70. I appreciate the openness with which he has dealt with the broad points that have been raised.
 I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 69 and 70. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clear assurances that Ministers would not, in his words, ''ever seek to relax the relevant aspects of education legislation in order to allow charging''. However, he said earlier that he could speak only for the present Secretary of State. The Minister confirmed that, under part 1, the scope and breadth of the powers allowed for exemptions from education legislation in respect of innovation could be interpreted so broadly that it would be possible to end the principle of free education in the maintained sector. While that does not apply to clause 5 as it stands, I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is a cause for some concern. Members of the 
 Committee must reflect on agreeing to primary legislation that could remain on the statute book for a considerable time.

Stephen Timms: I say categorically, on behalf of my party, that under no circumstances would we do that. I hope that the h G would give the same reassurance on behalf of his party. Any future Government could repeal sections 449 to 462 of the Education Act 1996, and that would have that effect, but I think that we would both wish to give the assurances that our parties would not do that.

Graham Brady: The Minister is almost repealing the relevant section of the Education Act 1996. The Bill provides the power to repeal its clauses. Should I occupy his seat in the future, I would have no intention of charging for places in maintained schools. Given the outbreak of consensus and unanimity on that matter, which might extend to the Liberal Democrat spokesman at the end of this Bench, would now be a good moment to restate the commitment of all political parties to the principle of free education?
 Before moving to the other amendments to which I shall allude briefly, I want to ask the Minister to reflect on whether it may be possible for the Government to table their own amendment at a later stage and put into the Bill a restriction that members of the Committee have agreed would be welcome. It would prevent any future Secretary of State, without recourse to primary legislation, from moving in a direction that we would all want to avoid. 
 I come now to amendments Nos. 20 and 30. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight speculated about the policy-making process in the then Department of Education and Science. The Bill may have dropped off a cliff with many open-ended powers and little detail on how they will be used because of its origins in the Downing street policy unit before the architects moved on to other things in June. We may never know, but perhaps we will be enlightened as to how the policy-making process works in the Department for Education and Skills. 
 We had a useful debate on the question of a balanced and broad curriculum. I was not seeking to ascribe views to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, but I am grateful to him for clarifying one point. In considering the relaxation of the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds, we do not intend to depart from a broadly-based curriculum. We want genuine flexibility that could lead to a more appropriate form of education to interest 14 to 19-year olds who are not adequately engaged in the education process. 
 It may be appropriate to cite an example from my constituency. An excellent sports college, the Ashton-on-Mersey school, has a close relationship with Manchester United football club. I note that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is forming a crucifix with his fingers, and I am sure that he would want that on the record for the benefit of constituents who do not share his views. However, the benefit to the 
 school's prestige, the development of the sporting faculty and other curriculum areas is considerable. It also works effectively for the club to continue the broader education of some of its apprentices at the school. That is an interesting model of how the process can progress. I was encouraged by the hon. Gentleman's position on that and I endorse it. 
 The Minister pointed out the later clauses that protect a broad and balanced curriculum. Although I have reservations that protection does not remain for schools under part 1, I was satisfied by the Minister's helpful explanation of how it would remain for earned autonomy schools under clause 5. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Exemptions available to qualifying schools

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 25, leave out ''may'', and insert ''shall''.

Irene Adams: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 68, in page 4, line 26, leave out ''any curriculum provision'' and insert—
''any of such curriculum provisions as shall be prescribed by order approved under the affirmative resolution procedure''.
 No. 44, in page 4, line 26, after second ''provision'', insert— 
''or such other areas as the Secretary of State may determine following representations from a qualifying body or qualifying school''.
 No. 12, in page 4, line 28, leave out subsections (1)(b) and (c) and insert— 
''(b) designate the modifications of any curriculum provision or pay and conditions provision as being available as of right, and 
 may— 
 (c) designate any curriculum provision or pay and conditions provisions as attracting discretionary exemption''.
 No. 45, in page 4, line 28, after second ''provision'', insert— 
''or such other areas as the Secretary of State may determine following representations from a qualifying body or qualifying school''.
 No. 46, in page 4, line 31, after ''provision'', insert— 
''or such other areas as the Secretary of State may determine following representations from a qualifying body or qualifying school''.
 No. 47, in page 4, line 33, after ''provision'', insert— 
''or such other areas as the Secretary of State may determine following representations from a qualifying body or qualifying school''.
 No. 35, in page 4, line 33, at end insert— 
''except insofar as every school must demonstrate that the curriculum it offers remains consistent with the objectives of the national curriculum.''
 No. 66, in page 5, line 9, at end insert— 
''(f) provide for the manner in which statutory provisions in relation to the inspection of schools, and the publication of information relating to school performance shall be applied in relation to a school in respect of which an order under subsection 2 is made''.
 No. 13, in page 5, line 13, leave out ''(1)(c)'', and insert ''(1)(b)''. 
 No. 14, in page 5, line 24, leave out ''(1)(b)'', and insert ''(1)(c)''. 
 No. 81, in page 5, line 30, at end insert— 
 ''(6) In so far as regulations made under this section relate to a curriculum provision they shall, in addition to providing for an exemption or modification, require persons responsible for the delivery of the curriculum in any school to have regard to the need to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum in that school.''

Graham Brady: If the Minister were a charitable man, he would have spoken at length on clause stand part. However, I cannot expect quarter to be given if none is asked for.
 The amendments would advance our key concern with the earned autonomy provisions: the exemptions related to school performance. In many respects, the phrase ''earned autonomy'' is not borne out by the Bill. We have rehearsed questions of ministerial discretion and the extent to which Ministers' opinions may be considered valid criteria. In clause 6, we see again that more discretion lies with Ministers than is appropriate or can readily be explained or justified, given their claims that they want an open and transparent process through which autonomy can genuinely be earned. 
 Amendment No. 11 deals with a specific aspect of ministerial discretion. In line 25 on page 4 of the Bill is the wonderfully open-ended word ''may''. The Minister says that autonomy will be earned through the fulfilment of appropriate, objective and transparent criteria. This evening, he has kindly undertaken to give the House before we complete our consideration of the Bill at least an inkling of what those criteria will be, for which I have thanked him. 
 However, even when we cross the initial threshold and achieve the criteria, and a school has seen whether it qualifies and whether its achievements will earn it autonomy, we reach another gateway in clause 6(1). It states: 
 ''Regulations may for the purposes of this section...designate any curriculum provision'' 
and so on. Through the amendments, particularly amendments Nos. 11, 13 and 14, my hon. Friends and I seek to restructure the clause. They would rearrange subsection (1) to differentiate the two paragraphs that set out exemptions as of right and the two that set out discretionary exemptions. 
 If something is exempted as of right, there should not be ministerial discretion as to whether regulations are produced to allow that exemption to take place. Being a fair-minded man, I am prepared to accept that Ministers should have the discretion that exists in the Bill if they are openly saying that something should be available on a discretionary basis. That makes perfect sense. If something is available as of right, however, it does not make sense that the Minister can choose not to make regulations to allow that to happen. 
 In wishing to re-order subsections (1)(a) to (d), I am seeking to change the burden on Ministers accordingly in order to ensure that current subsections (1)(a) and (1)(c) are covered by a requirement that regulations shall designate as of right. For the two paragraphs (b) and (d), which provide for discretionary exemption, 
 the amendments leave the current wording that regulations may designate, which seems entirely sensible and appropriate. 
 The aim is to create a process that brings into play a dynamic that will impose certain obligations on Ministers, if the criteria that they have set out are met, instead of the stop-start process whereby Ministers examine individual applications to determine whether someone qualifies or whether a school has genuinely earned autonomy. It would increase the degree of certainty for schools, so that they can know what will happen as they move through the process. The amendments are particularly relevant. 
 Amendment No. 68 deals with the question of parliamentary scrutiny. The Minister raised the issue—perhaps with a degree of irony—and said that it was important. The amendment would require that regulations are introduced under an affirmative resolution procedure, rather than moved by Ministers under a negative procedure. While it is my intention to make life easier for schools, when possible and appropriate, I do not have a similar concern for Members of Parliament, who should do their job of scrutinising legislation. My amendment would increase the burden on Members of the House, who would be expected to earn their living by scrutinising the regulations under clause 6(1). 
 By accepting the amendments, we would improve the transparency of the Bill and the dynamism of the process. We would make life easier for schools, as they claim what they rightly regard, in many cases, as their entitlement to greater autonomy based on their performance and achievements. 
 Amendment No. 66 would create a power under clause 6(2) to provide for inspection of schools and publication of performance information. It is entirely consistent with the Official Opposition's approach to raising standards in schools. I was pleased that the Secretary of State, when challenged by one of my hon. Friends on Second Reading, confirmed her admiration of and gratitude for the actions of the previous Conservative Government in setting out the agenda for publication of performance data and ensuring rigorous inspection of schools. It would be a retrograde step if, under the earned autonomy provisions, we were to lose some of the levers and tools that are available for assessing schools' performance, particularly given that, as the Minister has said, some of the performance indicators might at least in part be the basis on which autonomy would be earned. If schools with earned autonomy did not have to continue to submit performance data, we would have no way of finding out about the effectiveness of the earned autonomy. We would not know whether the school continued to qualify for it, or whether a problem had arisen, making it appropriate to review the situation. 
 I should be interested in the Minister's comments. My hon. Friends and I would want the matter of earned autonomy to be dealt with by way of an open, predictable process in which schools would know where they stood. However, we would want a quid pro 
 quo; the public, Parliament and Ministers should have a right to know what was going on in the school that had been granted autonomy and how it was working. My amendment would provide for a power to prescribe measures for inspection and publication of performance data. As far as I can see, there are no such measures in the Bill.

Chris Grayling: I want to make some comments, with respect to amendment No. 35, about the future of the national curriculum. I have not been completely reassured by the Minister's comments.
 Two possible scenarios seem possible. If the Bill is intended to allow a school the flexibility to modify its curriculum to reflect its desire to be innovative and specialised and to offer an additional dimension to its teaching while retaining the fundamental principles of the national curriculum, that is logical. However, if the Government want to bestow complete freedom to move away from the national curriculum, we need to understand that. If the former possibility is what is intended, clearer signposts should be provided to show that there will be limits on a school's ability to make radical changes to its curriculum that would override the basic provisions of the national curriculum. 
 If the Government intend the first of the two scenarios that I have suggested, the amendment does not amount to a radical change; it would draw the line between sensible curriculum modification and a move towards curriculum anarchy. If it is not intended that schools should be allowed to depart entirely from the national curriculum, the Minister should be able to accept the amendment in the spirit in which it is put forward. I seek substantial clarification of the safeguards in the legislation that would stop a school from heading down a path so radically different from that of the national curriculum that it would fundamentally change the nature of the education that pupils received. 
 I strongly believe that the national curriculum has made a significant contribution to education. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has mentioned the limitations of the scope and nature of the curriculum. Nevertheless, it is essential for schools to have a fundamental platform on which to base their teaching if standards are to improve. I would feel deeply uncomfortable if the Bill did not close loopholes that might allow that platform to be removed.

Andrew Turner: I am listening with care, but I am not clear what my hon. Friend understands the objectives of the national curriculum to be.

Chris Grayling: I see the objectives as providing a basic set of signposts for schools about the teaching that they are expected to provide in basic subjects such as maths, English and so forth. It is a framework to enable schools to deliver the fundamentals of teaching, and we should ensure that that remains so. We do not expect many schools to move off at such a tangent that they radically change what they are doing. However, the legislation would allow a school to re-engineer its
 curriculum entirely away from the standards set by the Government. A line should be drawn between freedom to innovate and freedom to make wholesale change in a way that changes the nature of teaching. That is the line that I hope we will not cross.

Phil Willis: I shall speak about the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil and me.
 Amendments Nos. 44 to 47 are probing amendments. They build on what the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West was trying to deal with in his amendments. I am trying to find out from the Minister whether the total limit of earned autonomy is simply the national curriculum and pay and conditions, or whether it will touch on other areas. In each of the amendments, I have sought to insert a phrase that broadens its scope. If the Minister does not accept the amendments, is he saying that earned autonomy extends purely into those two areas and nowhere else, and that the Government do not envisage any extension to it? Last weekend, head teachers spoke to me about issues including selection, admissions policies and religious education, particularly for children from single-faith schools who come into the maintained sector. I should like an assurance on the record that the Minister does not propose any extension in terms of earned autonomy. That is the purpose of the amendments. 
 Amendment No. 81 picks up the issues raised by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. I understand his concerns. While I had grave reservations about what was done to us in 1988, we now, particularly after Lord Deering's review of the national curriculum and what has happened since, have a workable national framework. That has a number of advantages. My party and I still believe that it is too prescriptive and that schools need more flexibility within a broader framework. I think particularly of what constitutes a modern foreign language. It is quite insulting that we cannot use many eastern European or Arabic languages, which would be appropriate in certain areas. We seem to think of foreign languages as being only European—basically, French, German and Spanish.

Graham Brady: Schools in my constituency tell me that it is no longer possible to recruit teachers of French, Spanish or any of the other modern European languages. The avenue that the hon. Gentleman is exploring might help solve some of the teacher recruitment problems.

Phil Willis: I shall not rise to that.
 The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell makes a valid point about what has been achieved. One achievement has been the recognition that today's society is much more mobile than previous ones. My family—and perhaps the families of those hon. Members who are 20 years younger than me—lived most of their lives in the same place. We grew up, went to school and went to work in the same areas, but that does not happen now. In some inner London 
 constituencies, one family in three moves each year. That is massive mobility. For that reason, stability in the curriculum is important. 
 The Minister has not yet made clear what parts of the national curriculum schools can disapply under part 1. I am sorry, Mrs. Adams, to have to speak about clause 80, which helpfully brings the Education Act 1996 up to date. Is the Minister saying that no school will be able to disapply the core subjects of mathematics, English and science in key stage 3, but that schools will have the opportunity to vary the foundation subjects, from technology to a modern foreign language, under the powers given in part 1, if not in parts 5 and 6? If they are not allowed to vary those subjects, what is the use of having that power? 
 I am trying to be objective and to accommodate the legitimate points made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, but we need to allow experiment. I must tell the Minister—this will take only an hour—that I visited Stockholm recently to look at secondary education provisions there. I visited a school with a significant number of Turkish immigrant children. It also had a fairly large population of Kurdish children and Finns and other nationalities that lived in the area. 
 Although Swedish, English and mathematics were the core national curriculum subjects, the head teacher decided that everyone would be taught in English, not Swedish. The whole curriculum was taught in a foreign language. In the playground, children spoke Swedish. At home, they spoke their mother tongue. At school, they were taught in English. I found that environment incredibly exciting and vibrant. If the Bill is applied literally, as the Minister suggests, we would not be able to do such things here. That would be a great sadness, because innovation can be enormously exciting. With amendment No. 81, I am trying to get clarity from the Minister on that important area. 
 I agree with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, although he did not make this specific point, on the need to maintain a broad balanced curriculum for youngsters through to the age of 14 and the end of key stage 3. I have no objection to a subject framework, but we should not believe that a collection of subjects equates to a curriculum. A curriculum is far more than that, and I want schools to be able to approach those subjects in many different ways and deliver an exciting and vibrant curriculum to young people. They need to turn them on, particularly in those areas where they are not turned on and are opting out of school earlier and earlier.

Caroline Flint: On modern languages and flexibility, I applaud what the hon. Gentleman said about considering other forms of languages and mother tongues in communities. However, I would like to address a situation that certainly exists in schools in my constituency, where children have huge problems with their mother tongue of English. No matter how much I might, in my heart, like all children to learn a second language, it concerns me greatly that some children who do not feel confident with their own language are placed under enormous stress by being expected to start on a foreign language as well.
 Special needs children come in 1,001 varieties, but some have very difficult communication problems, particularly with their own language of English, verbal or written. I hope that that would be considered. Such consideration should not be absolute, but until children reach a certain level of competence in their own language, we should be mindful about pressuring them with a second one.

Phil Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. A full debate is required to do justice to it. I agree with a significant amount of what she said. My personal view is that 11 is too late an age at which a child should start to learn a modern foreign language. If we genuinely want to engage young people in a foreign language, it must be done much earlier. I would like children to do something exciting with languages at the end of key stage 1.
 I have reservations about some of the things that the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) have said about immigrants and language. Although I accept that the issue is important for young people, if we are going to integrate people whose first language is not English into our society, we must first recognise them as individuals, and recognise their culture, faith and language. 
 One of the exciting things that one finds in Scandinavia is a statutory right for children from other countries to be taught in their own language for a minimum time each week. That immediately says, ''We value where you've come from, your language and your heritage, and we will build on your skills.'' If we can combine both those ideas, we can start to do some exciting things.

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: I should like to finish, because time is short and I have strayed off piste.
 In conclusion, the point before us is important and worth spending some time on.

Stephen Timms: We have had an interesting and valuable debate. The Bill provides for schools that have earned their autonomy to be trusted to take responsible decisions in partnership with their stakeholders over pay and conditions and the national curriculum, and our discussion has focused on the national curriculum. We do not think it appropriate at this stage to legislate for areas beyond those two. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough asked me a direct question about that. It may well be that, in due course, as a result of people taking up the power to innovate, we will come up with examples of successful innovations that we might want to apply more widely through the earned autonomy powers. If that were the case, we should want to look at the possibility of legislating further to include those freedoms within earned autonomy. The reassurance that the hon. Gentleman wanted from me was that if we were to do that we would have to come back with fresh primary legislation. I can give him that
 assurance. Without any more primary legislation, the ability to exercise earned autonomy will be just in the two areas set out in the Bill.

Graham Brady: Could I ask the Minister to revisit the point that he made in responding to an earlier amendment that, on the expiry of exemptions under part 1, one of the mechanisms that might be employed to extend innovation for a further period would be to extend the earned autonomy regulations? Before he concludes, will he elaborate on which aspects of the earned autonomy provisions could be extended in that way in order to fulfil that objective?

Stephen Timms: It would involve expanding the list in clause 6(1)(a) to (d) and saying that we could designate some other provisions as well. Those would be available for exercise either as of right or on a discretionary basis under the terms of that part of clause 6.

Graham Brady: I remind the Minister that he said to me in response to an earlier amendment that there were three different approaches that could be taken. The first was to use primary legislation, the second was an extension of the earned autonomy provisions and the third was a deregulatory order. Is he now saying that it could only be done through primary legislation extending the earned autonomy provisions, or could earned autonomy standing in its own right fulfil the objective that he described?

Stephen Timms: I am not sure whether it is ''no'' or ''yes'', but the position is that to extend earned autonomy—the second of the options that the hon. Gentleman identifies—would require primary legislation. The regulatory reform order route would not, but extending earned autonomy would.
 We want the process for schools to earn autonomy to be as simple and as unbureaucratic as possible. Wherever possible we should like to make those flexibilities available automatically. However, we have retained in clause 6 the ability to make both automatic and discretionary areas of exemption in the regulations, and the ability to respond to experience. We currently expect to make proposals for regulations under clause 6(1)(a), that is, exemptions as of right, not under clause 6(1)(b), the discretionary exemptions, nor under clause 6(1)(c), and to consult as to whether we want discretionary exemptions under clause 6(1)(d). I hope that that explains why it is appropriate to leave the word ''may'' in the first line of clause 6, rather than replacing it by ''shall''—that allows some flexibility about which of the four is implemented. 
 As far as possible, we would like the exemptions to be available as of right to schools that meet the criteria and therefore to minimise the discretionary elements of the list.

Andrew Turner: It would appear that the earned autonomy is a reward for performance, whereas the unearned autonomy is meant to raise standards. I say that because clause 1(1) mentions the objective of
 raising standards, but only with reference to chapter 1. Does the Minister agree that the raising of standards is not one of the objectives of clause 6?

Stephen Timms: No, I do not agree. Raising standards is an objective of the entire Bill, but because the discretionary aspect does not apply to earned autonomy, it is not necessary to specify that as a criterion. Schools that meet the criteria will be able to take advantage of the exemptions, but the purpose of their doing so will be the raising of standards. That theme runs through the Bill.
 We had an interesting discussion of the national curriculum. That has been a feature of the landscape since 1988 and we heard something about its genesis in an interesting contribution. It is well understood by parents and pupils, and everyone associated with schools lives in the climate of entitlement that it has led to, and the common understanding that children need, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, a broad and balanced curriculum if they are to rise to the opportunities of the 21st century. 
 Earlier I read the aims of the national curriculum—about which an exchange took place on the Opposition Benches—as we set them out in curriculum 2000. We remain committed to the two broad aims that we set out there. We would not want to return to the days when pupils and parents had no idea what would be taught in schools. The hon. Gentleman's point about mobility is important in connection with that. However, we want to give successful schools greater freedom to provide a broad, balanced curriculum that suits them and their pupils. 
 We firmly believe in the place of the core subjects as set out later in the Bill: English, maths and science. They should remain the core curriculum. However, we need serious debate about what else might be considered part of the core curriculum for pupils in successful schools. We propose to consult on that issue. The hon. Gentleman asked whether I envisaged that the core as set out later for key stages 1 to 3 would continue to be the core. The answer is yes. However, we think that there is scope for variation in the other, foundation, subjects. 
 I should have responded earlier to the hon. Gentleman's point about the distinction between key stages 1 to 3 and key stage 4. He will see that a distinction is made in the Bill; clause 80 deals with key stages 1 to 3 and clause 81 deals with key stage 4. That reflects the distinction that he has drawn and the need for us to be open to the idea of further flexibility with respect to key stage 4—for just the reasons that he and other hon. Members have given. 
 We heard an interesting debate between the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. I found the point of view of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight the more persuasive of the two. We are interested in the debate on freedoms in the present context, and will be consulting on it in coming weeks. I can give an assurance that we shall produce a 
 document setting out the options, as a basis for consultation, before the Bill leaves the House. I hope that that will help members of the Committee.

Chris Grayling: I welcome some of the reassurances that the Minister has given, but in many ways he has highlighted my greatest concern about the Bill—the extent to which the Government's word has to be taken on trust. So many of the provisions are indeterminate. They relate to matters on which the Government will consult, publish papers and create new guidelines. The legislation seems terribly imperfect, so I should welcome the Minister's comments on why it is necessary to leave so many important issues open. Why can such important legislation not to be more detailed and less of a wish list?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman is relatively new to the House. As he takes part in more proceedings such as ours in the years ahead, he will find that what he describes is a common characteristic of them. Members of the Committee need to take a view on whether they think it right for the provisions to be in primary legislation. Beyond that, I am suggesting how we intend to use the powers set out. We will be able to spell out how we will do so in more detail before the Bill leaves the House of Commons. I hope that what I have said is enough to show hon. Members that the measures will help to bring about the needed changes, on which there is wide agreement across the Committee.
 My final point returns to some of the flexibility for which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough expressed an aspiration. I agreed with much of what he said, especially about the need to engage a large number of young people who cannot see the point of what they are asked to do in school. It might be possible to do so by disapplying programmes of study rather than subjects themselves. That is one option on which we shall want to consult in coming weeks.

Graham Brady: The Minister has not dealt with amendment No. 66, which relates to inspection and publication of performance information. I should be grateful if he would do so.

Stephen Timms: Amendment No. 66 was on the tip of my tongue. We do not want to dilute accountability through our inspection arrangements or performance tables. We do not believe that any exemptions given under earned autonomy will require statutory changes to the inspection system or to performance tables. When account needs to be taken of developments under earned autonomy, Ofsted can do so by issuing guidance to inspectors. We continually review the operation of performance tables to ensure that they accurately reflect the wide range of high-quality qualifications available. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

David Miliband: One thing that has troubled me about the last hour or so of debate is that the concept of earned autonomy has been treated as though schools either have it or do not. My understanding is that
 schools will progressively achieve greater freedom across a range of issues as they become more successful. The Minister mentioned inspection. Am I wrong to think that the more successful a school is, the less regular the inspection cycle and the less intrusive the inspection regime will be? Should we not think of earned autonomy as a gradient rather than a switch that is turned on and off?

Stephen Timms: Yes and no. On some matters, schools that qualify for earned autonomy will be natural candidates for greater freedoms, and those will not depend on legislation. Light-touch inspections are certainly one successful example of that. However, that is outside the legislation. In terms of the legislation, the question is whether schools meet performance criteria. If the answer is yes, they can take up all the exemptions and modifications set out.

Graham Brady: I shall not attempt to deal with all the long and diverse group of amendments. We have had a useful debate, and the Minister has genuinely done his best to answer the questions and points raised by hon. Members, especially in his response to amendment No. 66, which he was burning to give to the Committee. We are all grateful for his reassurances.
 I want to comment briefly on the Minister's remarks about the amendments that I tabled to clause 6(1)(a) to (d). He helpfully enlightened the Committee about those aspects, which, even at this early stage, when the enabling legislation is still wet on the page, the Government either do or do not intend to use, or intend to discuss before making a decision. 
 During the course of the day, I have frequently amazed myself at how helpful I have been to Ministers—I have fallen over backwards to help them. My amendments would break down paragraphs (a) to (d) in a helpful way, in that the application of the word ''shall'' under my amendments would apply to paragraphs (a) and (c), of which the Government intend to make use and which deal with exemptions as of right. The word ''may'' would continue to apply to what are now paragraphs (b) and (d). 
 I do not intend to press the amendments to a Division, but I am slightly disappointed. We sought to add real context to the way in which decisions were taken and to reassure schools that they would proceed when they met the criteria and would not have to wait for Ministers to decide whether to allow them to proceed.

Phil Willis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that amendment No. 66 has taken on enormous importance? The Minister accepted that, in terms of the foundation subjects of the national curriculum, the Government intend to be able to disapply programmes of study. That is an important breakthrough, because they would also, therefore, have to disapply attainment targets and assessment arrangements in all those subjects.
 That is a fundamental change, and it is a pity that the Press Gallery is not packed because it is the most important matter to arise today. If 50 per cent. of schools can have earned autonomy as a result of 
 achieving their five plus A to Cs and meeting the standards, and 80 per cent. are not operating under special measures or with serious weaknesses, 80 per cent. of schools can aspire, under earned autonomy, to disapply attainment targets and assessment arrangements in terms of programmes of study. In relation to amendment No. 66, the inspection arrangements that exist would have to be changed dramatically to meet the new circumstances. 
 That is a major breakthrough, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendment. 
 Mr. Brady: Indeed.

Stephen Timms: I leap to my feet in the dying minute. I urge the Committee to take careful note of the points that I made and the words in which I expressed them. I said that we would consult on options that would embrace the changes that I indicated. That is different from the point that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made.
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.] 
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Ten o'clock till Thursday 13 December at five minutes to Ten o'clock. 
Adams, Mrs. Irene (Chairman) 
 Bailey, Mr. 
 Brady, Mr. 
 Coaker, Mr. 
 Flint, Caroline 
 Francis, Dr. 
 Grayling, Chris 
 Heppell, Mr. 
 Kumar, Dr. 
Laing, Mrs. 
 Laws, Mr. 
 Miliband, Mr. 
 O'Brien, Mr. Stephen 
 Purnell, James 
 Timms, Mr. 
 Touhig, Mr. 
 Turner, Mr. Andrew 
 Willis, Mr.